Kosmo
|
 posted on 27/9/06 at 08:42 PM |
|
|
Which R1 Engine ?
I have made my choice of installaing an R1 engine in my car... however I know nothing about bike engines yet and want to make sure I get it right.
What year/model is most suitable ?
Is there any I should stay away from ?
Do all the models have the same engine mountings ?
Cheers,
Kosmo.
|
|
|
|
|
smart51
|
| posted on 27/9/06 at 09:42 PM |
|
|
Carbed ones from 1998 - 2001 are good and fuel injection from 2002 - 2003. 2004 engines onwards are quite different and some say not as suitable.
98/99, 00/01 and 02/03 engines have different fixings.
|
|
|
TimC
|
| posted on 28/9/06 at 07:11 AM |
|
|
It's entirely up to you. Latest engines are (not surprisingly) less proven.
Carbs have some advantages in terms of simplicity of wiring/fueling. However, that's not to say that the injection engine is a total nightmare.
Having said all that, and faced with the same choice, I opted for a 00-01 5JJ Carb'd motor.
|
|
|
chockymonster
|
| posted on 28/9/06 at 09:24 AM |
|
|
I went for a 5PW fuel injected motor.
I was told the wiring would be a nightmare etc.
In reality it is such an easy install from an electrical point of view. The thing to remember is the 5PW has different mounts and the sump is deeper.
This has caused me difficulty with the air filter height but I'm working around that.
The powercommander has pretty flashy lights on it, which is a bonus 
PLEASE NOTE - Responses on Forum Threads may contain Sarcasm and may not be suitable for the hard of Thinking.
|
|
|
mac1
|
| posted on 28/9/06 at 10:10 AM |
|
|
whichever you go for malc at yorkshire engines has a boatload of them as he has just been here and the van is full of them 2001 to 2006
give him a ring 07960011585
|
|
|
smart51
|
| posted on 28/9/06 at 10:26 AM |
|
|
2004 engines onwards are different from earlier engines.
Early R1s reved to about 12,000 and made about 150 BHP. There were slight differences.
Late R1s rev to about 14,000. This extra 2000 RPM boosts the power to around 180 BHP. The cams were probably changed to help this. each generation
of engine makes slightly more torque than the one before but not so much that you'd notice. The later engines make that torque higher in
the rev range to help it run to 14000. The result is slightly less bottom end.
2004+ engines also have a closer ratio gearbox. I for one would prefer wider spaced gears, especially 5th and 6th.
The biggest problem though is likely to be noise. SVA and track days measure noise at high revs (2/3 of peak power for SVA [I think] and 3/4 of max
revs for track days.) a later R1 will be at higher revs which equals louder noise. You'll need a huge silencer.
Because of the taller 1st gear and the lower low end torque, later engines are slower off the line in your car than earlier engines, despite those
2000 extra RPM and the 30 more BHP that you get. At track speeds though, that shouldn't be a problem.
newer engines cost more as well.
|
|
|
tks
|
| posted on 28/9/06 at 10:50 AM |
|
|
naahhh
i would go for the newest you can aford..
Injection is a big plus and wireing is a 1 off job.
and you are not the only one with the engine. sow everyone can help!
its easy!
anyway 2days more work and having 30Bhp is ideal...
also gearing depends on primary ratio and diff choice and wheel choice...
Sow enough variables to play with..
Tks
The above comments are always meant to be from the above persons perspective.
|
|
|
Kosmo
|
| posted on 28/9/06 at 07:24 PM |
|
|
Thanks again.... when I get more experience maybe I will be able to others ?
Cheers,
Kosmo.
|
|
|
